SLP Criminal - The Legal Chamber

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

9Sep

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules: Vague and Omnibus Aren’t Grounds to Quash FIR If Specific Allegations Exist

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in quashing the FIR under Section 482 CrPC, ruling that the allegations contained specific details of dowry demands with dates and particulars, which prima facie disclosed offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The Court clarified that factual defences like misrepresentation are to be adjudicated at trial and cannot be grounds for quashing at the preliminary stage. Facts Of The Case: The case originated from an FIR lodged by the first appellant, Krishnakant Kwivedy, against the respondents for offences under the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The complaint alleged that negotiations for the marriage between the second appellant (Kwivedy's daughter) and the fifth respondent broke down due to dowry demands. Specific allegations w...

Justice Delayed is Justice Denied: Supreme Court Orders Fresh Bail Hearing for Convict

The Supreme Court reiterated the legal principle that appellate courts should liberally suspend sentences of fixed short-term imprisonment during the pendency of an appeal to prevent the appeal itself from becoming infructuous. It held that denial requires recording exceptional, compelling reasons why release would be against public interest. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Aasif @ Pasha, was convicted and sentenced by the Trial Court in Meerut for offences under the POCSO Act, IPC (Sections 354, 354Kha, 323, 504), and the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The sentences, which included terms of four years of rigorous imprisonment for the major charges, were ordered to run concurrently. Dissatisfied with the conviction, the appellant filed a criminal appeal before the Allahabad High...

Supreme Court Acquits Man: “Confession to Police” Cannot Be Used as Evidence

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, holding that a confessional FIR made to a police officer is wholly inadmissible as evidence under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The prosecution failed to prove its case with legally admissible evidence, rendering the medical and other evidence insufficient for conviction. Facts Of The Case: The appellant, Narayan Yadav, himself lodged an FIR at Korba Kotwali Police Station on 27.09.2019, confessing to the murder of Ram Babu Sharma. In the FIR, he stated that a quarrel ensued at the deceased's residence after the latter made an obscene remark upon seeing a photograph of the appellant's girlfriend. In a fit of rage, the appellant claimed he picked up a vegetable knife and inflicted injuries on the deceased, later also hitting him with...